1. Related Applications
This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/409,482, U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/409,494, and U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/626,783. This application incorporates by reference all of the following: co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/199,671, filed on Sep. 7, 2011, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/381,291, filed on Sep. 9, 2010, co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/199,684, filed on Sep. 7, 2011, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/403,099, filed on Sep. 9, 2010, co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/199,678, filed on Sep. 7, 2011, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/403,097, filed on Sep. 9, 2010, co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/199,682, filed on Sep. 7, 2011, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/381,313, filed on Sep. 9, 2010, co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/199,681, filed on Sep. 7, 2011, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/403,111, filed on Sep. 9, 2010, co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/199,677, filed on Sep. 7, 2011, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/381,347, filed on Sep. 9, 2010, co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/199,679, filed on Sep. 7, 2011, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/403,136, filed on Sep. 9, 2010, co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/199,720, filed on Sep. 7, 2011, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/403,134, filed on Sep. 9, 2010, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/460,572, filed on Jan. 3, 2011, co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/199,719, filed on Sep. 7, 2011, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/403,098, filed on Sep. 9, 2010, co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/199,721, filed on Sep. 7, 2011, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/403,081, filed on Sep. 9, 2010, co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/199,705, filed on Sep. 7, 2011, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/403,135, filed on Sep. 9, 2010, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/466,177, filed on Mar. 22, 2011, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/409,475, filed on Nov. 2, 2010, co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/199,712, filed on Sep. 7, 2011, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/403,113, filed on Sep. 9, 2010, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/409,478, filed on Nov. 2, 2010, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/409,476, filed on Nov. 2, 2010, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/409,482, filed on Nov. 2, 2010, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/409,470, filed on Nov. 2, 2010,  U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/517,413, filed on Apr. 19, 2011,  U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/468,964, filed on Mar. 29, 2011,  U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/409,487, filed on Nov. 2, 2010, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/409,494, filed on Nov. 2, 2010, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/456,219, filed on Nov. 2, 2010, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/456,221, filed on Nov. 2, 2010, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/456,220, filed on Nov. 2, 2010, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/432,488, filed on Jan. 13, 2011, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/506,572, filed on Jul. 11, 2011, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/519,075, filed on May 16, 2011, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/519,055, filed on May 16, 2011, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/460,573, filed on Jan. 4, 2011, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/461,223, filed on Jan. 13, 2011, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/429,282, filed on Jan. 3, 2011, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/429,289, filed on Jan. 3, 2011, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/499,996, filed on Jun. 22, 2011, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/575,196, filed on Aug. 17, 2011, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/575,204, filed on Aug. 17, 2011, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/532,233, filed on Sep. 8, 2011, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/539,668, filed on Sep. 27, 2011, and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/626,783, filed on Oct. 3, 2011, all of which are hereby incorporated by reference.
Additionally, this patent application hereby incorporates by reference U.S. Pat. No. 5,301,900 issued Apr. 12, 1994 to Groen et al., U.S. Pat. No. 1,947,901 issued Feb. 20, 1934 to J. De la Cierva, and U.S. Pat. No. 2,352,342 issued Jun. 27, 1944 to H. F. Pitcairn.
2. The Field of the Invention
This invention relates to rotating wing aircraft (rotorcraft), and, more particularly to rotorcraft relying on autorotation of a rotor to provide lift.
3. The Background Art
Rotorcraft rely on a rotating wing to provide lift. In contrast, fixed-wing aircraft rely on air flow over a fixed wing to provide lift. Fixed-wing aircraft must therefore achieve a minimum ground velocity on takeoff before the lift on the wing is sufficient to overcome the weight of the plane. Fixed-wing aircraft therefore generally require a long runway along which to accelerate to achieve this minimum velocity and takeoff.
In contrast, rotorcraft can take off and land vertically or along short runways inasmuch as powered rotation of the rotating wing provides the needed lift. This makes rotorcraft particularly useful for landing in urban locations or undeveloped areas without a proper runway.
The most common rotorcraft in use today are helicopters. A helicopter typically includes an airframe, housing an engine and passenger compartment, and a rotor, driven by the engine, to provide lift. Forced rotation of the rotor causes a reactive torque on the airframe. Accordingly, conventional helicopters require either two counter rotating rotors or a tail rotor in order to counteract this reactive torque.
Another type of rotorcraft is the autogyro. An autogyro aircraft derives lift from an unpowered, freely rotating rotor comprising two or more rotor blades. The energy to rotate the rotor results from a windmill-like effect of air passing through the underside of the rotor (i.e., autorotation of the rotor). The Bernoulli effect of the airflow moving over the rotor blade surface creates lift. The forward movement of the aircraft comes in response to a thrusting engine such as a motor driven propeller mounted fore or aft.
During the early years of aviation, autogyro aircraft were proposed to avoid the problem of aircraft stalling in flight and to reduce the need for runways. In autogyro aircraft, the relative airspeed of the rotor blades may be controlled or influenced somewhat independent of the forward airspeed of the autogyro, allowing slow ground speed for takeoff and landing, and safety in slow-speed flight.
Various autogyro devices in the past have provided some means to begin rotation of the rotor prior to takeoff (i.e., prerotation). Prerotation may minimize the takeoff distance down a runway. One type of autogyro is the “gyrodyne.” Examples of such aircraft are the XV-1 convertiplane tested in 1954 and the Rotodyne built by Fairey Aviation in 1962. The gyrodyne includes a thrust source providing thrust in a flight direction and a rotor providing autorotative lift at cruising speeds. Jet engines located on the tip of each rotor blade provided rotation of the rotor during takeoff, landing, and hovering.
Although typical rotorcraft provide the significant advantage of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL), they are much more limited in their maximum flight speed than are fixed-wing aircraft. One reason that prior rotorcraft are unable to achieve high flight speed is a phenomenon known as “retreating blade stall.”
In a fixed-wing aircraft, all wings move forward in fixed relation with respect to one another and the airframe. However, as a rotorcraft moves in a flight direction, rotation of the rotor causes each blade thereof to be either “advancing” or “retreating.” A blade is advancing if it is moving in the same direction as the flight direction. A blade is retreating if it is moving opposite the flight direction. Thus, the velocity of any point on any blade is the velocity of that point, with respect to the airframe, plus the velocity of the airframe.
Rotor blades are airfoils that provide lift based on the speed of air flow thereover. Accordingly, the advancing blade typically experiences much greater lift than the retreating blade. If left uncheck, this disproportionate lift may render the rotorcraft unflyable. One solution to this problem is allowing the rotor blades to “flap.” Flapping enables rotorcraft to travel in a direction substantially perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the rotor.
With flapping, an advancing blade is allowed to fly or flap upward in response to the increased air speed thereover, thereby reducing the blade's angle of attack. This, in turn, reduces the lift generated by the advancing blade. A retreating blade experiences less air speed and tends to fly or flap downward such that its angle of attack is increased. This, in turn, increases the lift generated by the retreating blade. In this manner, flapping balances the lift generated by the advancing and retreating blades.
However, lift equalization due to flapping is limited by retreating blade stall. As noted above, flapping of the rotor blades increases the angle of attack of the retreating blade. At certain higher speeds in the direction of flight, the increase in the blade angle of attack required to equalize lift results in loss of lift (stalling) of the retreating blade.
A second limit on the speed of rotorcraft is the drag at the tips of the rotor blades. The tip of the advancing blade is moving at a speed equal to the speed of the aircraft relative to the surrounding air, plus the speed of the tip of the blade with respect to the aircraft. Thus, the speed at the tip of an advancing blade is equal to the sum of the flight speed of the rotorcraft plus the product of the length of the blade and the angular velocity of the rotor.
In helicopters, the rotor must rotate to provide both upward lift and thrust in the direction of flight. Increasing the speed of a helicopter increases the air speed at the tip, both because of the increased flight speed as well as the increased angular velocity of the rotors required to provide supporting thrust. The speed at the tip of the advancing blade could therefore approach the speed of sound, even when the flight speed of the rotorcraft was actually much less. As the air speed over the tip approaches the speed of sound, the drag on the blade becomes greater than the engine can overcome. Accordingly, helicopters are quite limited in how fast they can fly.
In autogyro aircraft, the tips of the advancing blades are also subject to this increased drag, even for flight speeds much lower than the speed of sound. The tip speed for an autogyro is typically smaller than that of a helicopter, for a given airspeed, since the rotor is not driven. Nevertheless, the same drag increase occurs eventually.
A third limit on the speed of rotorcraft is reverse air flow over the retreating blade. As noted above, the retreating blade is traveling opposite the flight direction with respect to the airframe. At certain high speeds in the direction of flight, portions of the retreating blade may move rearward, with respect to the airframe, slower than the flight speed of the airframe. Accordingly, the direction of air flow over those portions of the retreating blade is reversed from that typically designed to generate positive lift.
Rather then generating positive lift, reverse air flow may impose negative lift, or a downward force, on the retreating blade. That is, an airfoil with positive angle of attack in a first direction has a negative angle of attack in a second direction, opposite the first direction.
The ratio of air speed of a rotorcraft in the direction of flight to the maximum corresponding air speed at the tips of the rotor blades is known as the “advance ratio.” The maximum advance ratio of currently available rotorcraft is less than 0.5. For most helicopters, the maximum achievable advance ratio is between about 0.3 and 0.4. Accordingly, current rotorcraft are limited to a top flight speed of about 200 miles per hour (mph) or less.
Rotorcraft are typically equipped with rotor blades having a fixed geometry in terms of chord and twist. The rotor blade geometry of such rotorcraft cannot be changed once the blade has been manufactured and fitted to the rotorcraft. Several efforts have been made to address this limitation. Such efforts typically focus on adding flaps to a rotor blade. These flaps are controlled in the same way as flaps on fixed wing aircraft.
Another method that has been tried in experimental aircraft is circulation control based on the Coanda effect. In such embodiments, compressed air is released from a longitudinal slot positioned at either the leading edge, trailing edge, or both. The compressed air exiting the rotor blade acts like a leading or trailing edge slat or flap, effectively changing the functional geometry of the blade.
However, flaps add significant complexity to the rotor blade of a rotorcraft. Similarly, circulation control requires delivery of relatively high temperature air through the interior of a rotor blade. This may substantially increase the cost of manufacturing such a rotor blade. Additionally, control of the compressed air may also require significant complexity, such as the use of piezo crystal controllers. Furthermore, providing the compressed air to a rotor blade may require considerable power, which is usually not available for rotorcraft during hover.
In view of the foregoing, it would be an advancement in the art to provide a rotor blade exhibiting different geometries configured to match or better fit the particular task as hand (e.g., VTOL, horizontal flight, high speed flight, etc.). It would also be an advancement in the art to provide a rotor blade that is easy to maintain.